"An essentially neutral budget" that "managed expectations through selective briefing", or a budget that did "little to quell fears" or a welcome announcement that "went some way to offset the income losses the sector has faced in the last three years"? We've rounded up reactions from different quarters on what impact the chancellor's budget will have on the public sector.

The public sector

Sir Richard Mottram, former permanent secretary in the Cabinet Office

The British way of government includes some interesting rituals. Wednesday's budget had some apparently familiar features. The budget box made its annual appearance, though once a symbol of Gladstonian austerity but now an expensive replica, it rather spoils the effect.

There was lip service to the mystique of budget secrecy even if in practice it seems largely to have been replaced by the management of expectations through selective briefing. And we have the chancellor's give away at the end of the speech, even if, in these straitened times, it amounts to just 1p off fuel.

But the underlying economic statistics and projections are, of course, anything but comforting, whether in terms of the trend rate of growth, the fiscal overhang, or inflation. With CPI inflation at 4.4%, the chancellor offered public sector pay increases of £250 for those on less than £21,000. A further squeeze is to come from Hutton's sensible report on pensions.

Alongside the budget the government published its "Plan for Growth", astrikingly modest document in terms of coverage, some of the leversidentified to achieve ambitious goals and the benchmarks for success. But it is important nevertheless, including within it the lifting of burdens on business, which lies at the heart of the government's programme.

So what does all this mean for public sector leaders and managers? The challenge remains to achieve the changes the government seeks, including relinquishing some of the levers of power, while massively cutting overheads. If the significance of the prime minister's recent comments about "enemies of enterprise" should not be exaggerated, they are a timely reminder of the risks from failure. Staffing more generally needs to be cut, while attempting to keep the best and lose the passengers, but with little scope to reward success.

None of this was made any easier by this week's economic background and essentially neutral budget.

The voluntary sector

Geraldine Blake, chief executive of Community Links charity, based in London's East End

A budget that hopes to grow the economy in the long term does very little to reverse the shrinking of society that has begun over the last year and will continue unabated.

In the poorest neighbourhoods of Newham, the dramatic and swift withdrawal of public funding is undermining services on which many of the most vulnerable rely, unemployment is high and rising, and huge changes to the tax and benefits system are just beginning to have an impact. Meanwhile local organisations like Community Links are having to close community centres and make staff redundant; shrinking not growing the big society.

In this context, George Osborne's announcements of another increase in the personal allowance and more apprenticeships are welcome, and will indeed make a difference, but their effects will be felt too late and are dwarfed by the challenges currently facing our communities. As for the big society, small changes to encourage private donations will help little.

Bold action – the right to reshape(a minimum three-month moratorium on cuts) for local authorities, significant extra support for the poorest communities, for the voluntary sector, or significant investment in the kind of early action work proposed by Frank Field and Graham Allen – was not forthcoming. Unlike a decision on fuel duty which came into effect five hours after the chancellor's speech, measures on employment and tackling poverty will take months or years to make a difference, during which time people will fall deeper into poverty and further from employment. Cuts can be made fast, but investment takes time.

The budget does little to quell our fear that for the people we support, the next few years will be extremely tough.

Matthew Sowemimo, head of public policy at WRVS, one of the UK's largest charitable and voluntary organisations

For the voluntary sector this is both the best of times and the worst of times. Ministers have put us at centre stage in the fulfilment of their ambitions for higher quality and more relevant services. Yet at the same time, voluntary organisations are reeling from the income squeeze brought about the recession and the roll out of public spending cuts at local level.

Levels of giving have fallen by £700m since 2008 and the fall in the value of the stock market that took place in 2008-9 depleted the income of charitable trusts – an important source of funds for the sector. It is precisely the type of neighbourhood charities that ministers wish to promote and expand that have been buffeted by the local authority spending cuts. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations estimated that spending cuts have reduced the sector's income by at least £3.5bn.

Faced with this financial vulnerability, the chancellor's announcements went some way to offset the income losses the sector has faced in the last three years. The decision to incentivise charitable giving by providing an inheritance tax cut for people who leave 10% of their estate to charity is extremely welcome. If the Treasury's estimate of the yield of this tax change is correct, this policy will help plug the sector's income gap. The bigger prize would be if the inheritance tax/legacy changes promote changes in charitable giving behaviour.

Gift Aid simplification has been advocated by the sector for some time and smaller charities particularly stand to benefit from reform. In the months to come we will need to assess how far the budget changes will benefit smaller charities as well as large established organisations like my own.

The sector depends on people giving time and giving money. The government's "big society" programme has raised the profile of volunteering.

In the coming years the sector needs to work with government to fully realise the benefits of the impending retirement of the baby boomers generation, many of whom have great skills and expertise that could be put to work across our communities.

Local government

How do we reform an economy for the future and create jobs when in Rotherham, for example, we've had to cut more than 350 jobs and make £41mn in cuts since the emergency budget? Our unemployment rate is above UK and Yorkshire regional levels. Families across the region and country are being squeezed with rising inflation, rising energy prices and rising food prices. Well at least local authorities get to share an additional £100m between them; beggars can't be choosers.

Public Sector cuts have been too fast and too deep adding additional pressures on families. While the freeze in council tax and associated grant is welcomed, it actually benefits more affluent and leafy areas such as Surrey than Rotherham in the north.

With the public sector contracting dramatically, it is essential that the private sector growth meets the new demands. But with growth down and no guarantee of this budget increasing it, how is the private sector going to deliver. The announcement of a new enterprise zone in Sheffield city region is welcomed. But will the reduction of corporation tax and new enterprise zones have an immediate impact on communities and families that are struggling?

For most councils the big news today was that there wasn't much news. The course of the next four years has been set, councils are dealing with huge budget reductions, and nothing in Wednesday's statement changes that for most areas. Some did receive a boost, particularly the 21 areas that will have . The benefits of this are clearly going to be very significant. Incentives for businesses, such as rate relief and simplified planning rules, combined with incentives for councils to promote growth, such as getting the proceeds from growth in business rates, could make a real difference.

In the new era of localism though, why is the government picking winners by restricting these benefits to just a few favoured councils, rather than opening them up to all.

Other nods to local government included the already announced £100m for potholes and the deal between central and local government to prevent council tax rises.

Local government will take any extra resources it gets, but these populist bungs reinforce a narrow view of what local government is about, and its future. Where for example was the commitment to new approaches, such as community budgets?

Very few workers in the public sector will have any experience of how to manage a number of different suppliers effectively, so perhaps it would have been a good move for the government to set aside some budget towards training public sector workers in this respect? Given the expected rise in more outsourcing, more private sector engagement within the public sector, and the likely scaling back of the public sector workforce, it would have made sense to invest more in training to make this workforce increasingly mobile.